Metro News & Reviews

Transportation headlines, Thursday, Feb. 9

Here is a look at some of the transportation headlines gathered by us and the Metro Library. The full list of headlines is posted on the Library’s Headlines blog, which you can also access via email subscription or RSS feed.

Both the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives are working on their versions of a multi-year transportation spending bill. The editorial takes aim at the House version of the bill. Excerpt:

¶It would make financing for mass transit much less certain, and more vulnerable, by ending a 30-year agreement that guaranteed mass transit a one-fifth share of the fuel taxes and other user fees in the highway trust fund. Instead it would compete annually with other programs.

¶It would open nearly all of America’s coastal waters to oil and gas drilling, including environmentally fragile areas that have long been off limits. [snip]…

¶It would demolish significant environmental protections by imposing arbitrary deadlines on legally mandated environmental reviews of proposed road and highway projects, and by ceding to state highway agencies the authority to decide whether such reviews should occur.

Excellent post that I encourage you to read because it’s relevant to L.A. The situation in D.C.: A proposed extension of the Metro rail system would include a station about 1,150 feet from the terminal at Dulles Airport — a long walk. In order to save money, an airport board member has proposed scrapping the 1.5-mile rail extension to the airport and replacing it with a people mover that would stop immediately in front of the terminal.

What’s this have to do with L.A.? The Crenshaw/LAX Line’s station at Aviation and Century will be 1.3 miles from Terminal 1 at LAX and about 1.8 miles from the Tom Bradley International Terminal. The airport is studying a people mover to connect the Crenshaw/LAX Line to the airport terminals and Metro has a study underway looking at various alternatives — bus rapid transit, light rail and people mover — to connect the Crenshaw/LAX and Green Line to the airport (a project to be funded partially by Measure R, btw).

The post about Dulles raises the same questions about LAX — how close could a train reasonably get to the various terminals and, perhaps, could a people mover get passengers closer at about the same speed?

As part of an ongoing series, a provocative list of five highways deserving of the wrecking ball because they are either eyesores, urban planning disasters or both. One not on the list that should be is the stretch of I-71 in Cincinnati that separates downtown proper from the Ohio River. Pedestrians can only reach the river and the city’s football and baseball stadiums and arena via bridges or ugly underpasses. Bury that freeway, Queen City residents!

@Frank M: Check out http://la-next.com/index2.html. This is LAWA’s official website for the next decade of new construction at LAX. It includes the addition of the Midfield Concourse, the Bridge, the new TBIT, people mover, the new CUP and tons of other things. It seems LAWA isn’t interested in a people mover that stops at all 8 terminals nor a people mover that goes right down the middle. It looks like they’re going with four or five stations spread out along the horseshoe. Check out the website it’s all there. Also if you are interested in LAX construction progress check out http://www.lawa.org/laxdev/laxdev.aspx.